Intel's 10nm process does finally exist in a shippable form, but it's not yet mature enough or high-volume enough to handle the entire breadth of their CPU product line. Intel launched new 14nm processors last month, 5.5 years after introducing their first 14nm processors.

Meanwhile, TSMC's 7nm process has been shipping since Q3 2018, and their EUV-based N7+ process is now in mass production. There's no question that TSMC is currently ahead of Intel both nominally and in all the important technical metrics. It's still entirely possible that Intel could re-take the lead if/when they get something post-10nm out the door, but that isn't going to happen this year. Intel's own CFO says it might take two more generations for them to regain the lead: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-process-tech-lag-com...

To add further perspective into the reply above, TSMC is expected to ship more 5nm this year than All of Intel 10nm has ever shipped to date.

Intel's current form of 10nm is roughly equivalent to TSMC's 7nm. What that basically means is TSMC is about a generation ahead.

> Intel launched new 14nm processors last month, 5.5 years after introducing their first 14nm processors.

> Meanwhile, TSMC's 7nm process has been shipping since Q3 2018, and their EUV-based N7+ process is now in mass production

So, to make this an apples-to-apples comparison: when did TSMC stop shipping new products on prior nodes? ;)

You can still go out and buy a new-production Ryzen 1600 AF chip right now, you know. AMD did not even finish releasing their 7nm lineup until basically a few weeks ago, Renoir products just started shipping last month.

Ice Lake actually beat the comparable AMD/TSMC chips to market by like, 8 months or something. They've been around in volume since like, november. I went to Costco before last thanksgiving and almost half the laptops had Ice Lake.

AMD can ship desktop processors sooner because they've architecturally managed to reduce the chiplet to smaller than the size of a phone SOC. Comparing apples to apples, or more specifically monolithic mobile processor vs monolithic mobile processor, TSMC isn't that far ahead.

Or for another data point, TSMC's big-chip 7nm yields are so bad that NVIDIA is disabling 15% of the processor on the Ampere GA100 even for the datacenter market that will be paying $25k a chip or something stupid.

TSMC is ahead, sure, but not as much as people want them to be. The ability to make phone SOCs and 70mm2 chiplets successfully doesn't mean they've got 7nm completely nailed.

You shouldn't ignore the fact that Apple's larger 7nm SoC has the same die size as Ice Lake, and has been shipping a lot longer. To the extent that TSMC's 7nm has been confined to small, low-power chips, Intel's 10nm has the same problem but worse.

Bingo, plus they are deep in R&D of 5nm with Apple having placed large orders already. Their 5nm plan sees shipping products WAY before intel's 7nm.

Although what you say is technically true, intel’s 10nm is more advanced than TSMCs 7nm — they aren’t using a shared scale. The biggest mistake intel made was probably being too ambitious.

> intel’s 10nm is more advanced than TSMCs 7nm

Depends on which Intel 10nm you're talking about, and which TSMC 7nm. Comparing Intel's failed initial 10nm from Cannonlake against something that is in mass production on the TSMC side isn't exactly fair. With respect to the 10nm Intel product that you can actually buy, TechInsights has this to say: "Produced in Intel's new 10 nm 2nd Gen process that should offer comparable performance to TSMC’s 7 nm process"— and that's coming from the pros with electron microscopes who teardown these chips to reverse engineer process tech. Numbers reported elsewhere (eg. WikiChip) indicate that TSMC's 7nm allows for about a 15% smaller SRAM cell, and AMD's Renoir notebook processors seem to have about the same overall transistor density advantage over Intel's Ice Lake notebook processors.

And as far as I can tell, AMD's not even using the EUV 7nm process from TSMC yet.